Mayflower District Court
#successinprogress-v-snakethebigboss
This is the start of #successinprogress-v-snakethebigboss channel.
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-08-28 06:57 p.m.
krabz used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 01:46 p.m. @krabz has added @Perch Perkins to the case channel.
Case Modified
krabz used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 01:46 p.m. @krabz has added @huddy. to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:05 p.m.@huddy. HELLO
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:05 p.m.
Again
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:16 p.m.
Ok complaint accepted
Toby Ellis, Esq. used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-14 02:16 p.m. @Toby Ellis, Esq. has added @jackg1 to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:16 p.m.@jackg1 Mr Clerk!
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
Please draft a civil summons order for the Defendant!(edited)
Musician_Man 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
jfc
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
ignore that typo...
Musician_Man 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
im flying a plane rn ur honor
Musician_Man 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
EOD i send it
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
Ok
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-14 02:17 p.m.
Thank you
huddy. 2025-03-14 02:28 p.m.
Howdy
huddy. 2025-03-16 07:16 a.m.@Toby Ellis, Esq.
Toby Ellis, Esq. used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-16 08:19 a.m. @Toby Ellis, Esq. has added @Nationgreat to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-16 08:19 a.m.@Nationgreat Hi please draft a civil summons order(edited)
Nationgreat 2025-03-16 08:30 a.m.
Will do.
Nationgreat 2025-03-16 08:39 a.m.@Toby Ellis, Esq. Proof of service.
https://gyazo.com/952a6cc82d2ef6c607fb2dc193b91e55
https://gyazo.com/952a6cc82d2ef6c607fb2dc193b91e55
NationgreatToby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-16 08:47 a.m.
Thank you very much
Toby Ellis, Esq. used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-17 11:43 a.m. @Toby Ellis, Esq. has added @deleted_user_3a4b0a8bf523 to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 11:43 a.m.@Deleted User Hello
Deleted User 2025-03-17 11:45 a.m.
Hello, Major tactical_pancakes, U.C Mayflower National Guard, Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
A written NOA will be filed this afternoon
A written NOA will be filed this afternoon
Deleted User 2025-03-17 11:47 a.m.
Please also add @bob78711new to this channel. He is co counsel
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 11:47 a.m.
ok
Toby Ellis, Esq. used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-17 11:47 a.m. @Toby Ellis, Esq. has added @bob78711new to the case channel.
Case Modified
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 11:47 a.m.@Deleted User @bob78711new I'm happy for a joint NOA to be filed
Deleted User 2025-03-17 11:48 a.m.
I’ll have it filed after lunch
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 11:48 a.m.
Thats fine, thank you
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:17 p.m.@Toby Ellis, Esq. We request proof of arbitration denial from the plaintiff
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:17 p.m.
cc: @huddy.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:17 p.m.
As per their statutory obligations under Title 5
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:21 p.m.@Toby Ellis, Esq. We're also going to move to strike the civil complaint
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:21 p.m.
when you're availble, we'll offer the our arguments
Deleted Userhuddy. 2025-03-17 01:32 p.m.
?
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:33 p.m.
I'll address our move to strike after we can get verification that you went through the arbitration process
huddy. 2025-03-17 01:33 p.m.
You're going to have to point me to the clause detailing that individuals seeking to sue others in a personal capacity are required to seek arbitration through the Justice Department.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:39 p.m.
That raises the second issue, and why we move to strike
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:39 p.m.
You failed to indiciate the capacity in which you're suing my client
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:39 p.m.
A quite serious oversight, which warrants a dismissal, and refiling of your complaint(edited)
huddy. 2025-03-17 01:50 p.m.
Plaintiff may resubmit a civil complaint provided that it is not opposed to by the Judge and Defendant has yet to file a response.
huddy. 2025-03-17 01:51 p.m.
cc; @Toby Ellis, Esq. , here is our amended and filed complaint
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:56 p.m.
We're going to object
Deleted User 2025-03-17 01:57 p.m.
For a plethora of reasons
Deleted User 2025-03-17 02:12 p.m.
The plaintiff suggests that the original intention of the lawsuit was to sue the defendant in their individual capacity, and yet their superseding complaint does not offer demonstrable evidence to affirm such a supposition. The court's purview is relegated to the actual language contained within the document, not the assurances of counsel. This is especially true, given the fact that their amendment would assuage a crucial procedural violation to participate in arbitration prior to filing this matter with the District Court. (Assuming this matter was originally intended to be brought in a quasi-official capacity.)
The defense would ask the court to deny any such amendments, as the difference in an individual capacity and quasi-official capacity suit are quite great. Procedurally, the next steps forward are crystal clear; the original complaint should be stricken, and the Plaintiff should have to re-file, correctly identifying the capacity in which they are bringing suit.
The reference for this would be Mayfl. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 17(a)(1).
In general, the ability to amend a complaint is permitted, by rule, within 3 days of filing, unless:
Both tenants spelled out under Rule 17 are fulfilled; The Defense is entitled (and obligated) to submit a responsive pleading,and the matter is already before the trial court and is on the docket of a presiding Magistrate. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to amend their complaint, and as such it should be struck by this court, with an instruction to re-file.
cc:@Toby Ellis, Esq. @huddy.
The defense would ask the court to deny any such amendments, as the difference in an individual capacity and quasi-official capacity suit are quite great. Procedurally, the next steps forward are crystal clear; the original complaint should be stricken, and the Plaintiff should have to re-file, correctly identifying the capacity in which they are bringing suit.
The reference for this would be Mayfl. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 17(a)(1).
In general, the ability to amend a complaint is permitted, by rule, within 3 days of filing, unless:
...the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar
Both tenants spelled out under Rule 17 are fulfilled; The Defense is entitled (and obligated) to submit a responsive pleading,
cc:
huddy. 2025-03-17 02:19 p.m.
It was never intended to be brought in a quasi-official capacity, as it was never labelled, titled or detailed in that way. If you assume that a suit entitled 'Name vs. Name' is intended to be 'Name vs. Mayflower National Guard', then there is something fundamentally flawed with your reasoning.
Furthermore, you failed to submit your response in time...
Furthermore, you failed to submit your response in time...
Deleted User 2025-03-17 02:28 p.m.
So much material to address,
Again, as we stated above, it's great tonow claim the intended capacity, but ultimately you still failed to delineate that in your filing. This is should be one of the first aspects of the drafting of a civil suit. Moreover, you argument that it wasn't intended to be "Name vs. Mayflower National Guard" is disingenuous, as a quasi-official lawsuit does not name the specific department, but rather the position in which someone was acting at the time the events took place.
Lastly, we most certainly did not fail to respond in time, we were servided yesterday, the sixteenth of March. We still have 4 days to respond; we exceeded our obligations
Again, as we stated above, it's great to
Lastly, we most certainly did not fail to respond in time, we were servided yesterday, the sixteenth of March. We still have 4 days to respond; we exceeded our obligations
Deleted User 2025-03-17 02:28 p.m.
cc: @Toby Ellis, Esq. @huddy.
huddy. 2025-03-17 02:38 p.m.
You failed to respond in time meaning you didn't respond before I submitting my amended complaint
huddy. 2025-03-17 02:38 p.m.
And you don't need to ping meevery time you want to say something
Deleted User 2025-03-17 02:48 p.m.
Your statement holds absolutely zero weight, and is not supported by the language of the Civil Rules of Procedure. I'll await a ruling.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 03:15 p.m.@Toby Ellis, Esq. Your honor can we get a ruling please
Deleted UserToby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 05:06 p.m.
Ok hi
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 05:06 p.m.
Sorry was busy
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 05:08 p.m.@Deleted User Are you arguing that this suit should be in quasi-offical capacity and as such the suit should reflect that?
Toby Ellis, Esq.Deleted User 2025-03-17 05:33 p.m.
I’m arguing the complaint itself is invalid because it fails to state the capacity in which my client is being sued
Deleted User 2025-03-17 05:34 p.m.
To retroactively imply such would be improper, given that the court has no definitive means of verifying the true intentions of the plaintiff. The very nature of civil complaints are to state the cause and premise upon which they are brought. An amendment simply won’t do, as is explained in my citation in the rules of Civil Procedure.
The only appropriate remedy is dismissal
The only appropriate remedy is dismissal
Deleted User 2025-03-17 05:34 p.m.
cc: @Toby Ellis, Esq.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 05:35 p.m.
I can also comment further on your question regarding quasi-official capacity, following a ruling on my motion to strike, as I believe it is also an element to this issue.
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 05:58 p.m.@huddy. Are you going to rebut or are you wanting me to rule(edited)
huddy. 2025-03-17 05:59 p.m.
I mean it's an incredibly flawed argument seeing as there are no standards ordering individuals to explicitely state that it is individual capacity, no rulings or citations doing so and it being common practice to not have to explicitely state that it is an individual capacity suit if it isn't otherwised mentions...
huddy.I mean it's an incredibly flawed argument seeing as there are no standards ordering individuals to explicitely state that it is individual capacity, no rulings or citations doing s...
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 06:01 p.m.
Well it has to be if you're suing someone for an action that occurred whilst they were acting in their official capacity
huddy. 2025-03-17 06:02 p.m.
Hence why we amended our complaint
huddy. 2025-03-17 06:02 p.m.
As we are legally allowed to do so, prior to a response
Toby Ellis, Esq.Well it has to be if you're suing someone for an action that occurred whilst they were acting in their official capacity
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:05 p.m.
Your honor, we fundamentally disagree with the Plaintiff’s suggestion
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:06 p.m.
There is no implied capacity in a lawsuit, it must be implicitly stated. This is common law.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:06 p.m.
This is an error which requires dismissal, and should they choose, it then may be re-filed
Deleted UserThere is no implied capacity in a lawsuit, it must be implicitly stated. This is common law.
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 06:09 p.m.
Ok, so is your objection also surrounding the amended complaint failing to state explicitly what capacity the defendant is being sued under as well as the original one
Toby Ellis, Esq.Ok, so is your objection also surrounding the amended complaint failing to state explicitly what capacity the defendant is being sued under as well as the original one
huddy. 2025-03-17 06:14 p.m.
The amended complaint does explicitely state what capacity the defendant is being sued in
huddy. 2025-03-17 06:15 p.m. 
Toby Ellis, Esq.Ok, so is your objection also surrounding the amended complaint failing to state explicitly what capacity the defendant is being sued under as well as the original one
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:22 p.m.
Your honor my motion can/will become two pronged, based on your ruling on to our motion to strike.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:22 p.m.
I would preferably like to get a ruling on our move to strike, prior to advancing my second argument, because it is entirely dependent on your determination
Deleted UserThe plaintiff suggests that the original intention of the lawsuit was to sue the defendant in their individual capacity, and yet their superseding complaint does not offer demonstr...
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:22 p.m.
This message contains the majority of our legal reasoning as to why the complaint itself cannot be amended
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:23 p.m.
cc: @Toby Ellis, Esq.
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 06:45 p.m.
Ok, I will be accepting the amended complaint
CC:@Deleted User @huddy.
CC:
Toby Ellis, Esq.Ok, I will be accepting the amended complaint CC: @Deleted User @huddy.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:48 p.m.
Can we get a written ruling, please
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:48 p.m.
Additionally, I will be moving to strike the amended complaint
ryan 2025-03-17 06:55 p.m.
Hi
ryan 2025-03-17 06:55 p.m.
I am Ryan
Deleted UserCan we get a written ruling, please
Toby Ellis, Esq. 2025-03-17 06:55 p.m.
I'm not going to lie to you, I really do not have the time to be writing anything. As a matter of fact, I don't believe I can provide this case the attention it needs during this extremely busy week that I'm in, thus my decision is rescinded and I will be transferring this case over to @ryan where he will take over
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:55 p.m.
Totally fine
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:55 p.m.@ryan We motion to reconsider our motion to strike
ryan 2025-03-17 06:56 p.m.
Let me scour the record
Deleted UserDeleted User 2025-03-17 06:56 p.m.@ryan
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:56 p.m.
Initial motion to strike
ryan 2025-03-17 06:57 p.m.
You know exactly what I need 
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:57 p.m.
Been doing this wayy too long
bob78711new 2025-03-17 06:57 p.m.
Just got home from school, will read up on what happened.
bob78711newJust got home from school, will read up on what happened.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 06:57 p.m.
DM me with questions
Deleted UserDM me with questions
bob78711new 2025-03-17 06:58 p.m.
wilco
ryan 2025-03-17 07:08 p.m.@Deleted User Can I ask you a few questions
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:08 p.m.
Always
ryan 2025-03-17 07:09 p.m.
Okay so if I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating that I should strike the complaint on the basis that it does not list the capacity of the Defendant, yes?
ryan 2025-03-17 07:10 p.m.
We will not address the amendment quite yet
ryanOkay so if I am understanding you correctly, you are advocating that I should strike the complaint on the basis that it does not list the capacity of the Defendant, yes?
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:11 p.m.
Yes, that is our primary issue. It is quite clearly accepted that one must indicate the capacity in which they are bringing suit. (And then as you mention, there are procedural issues with amending it in the first place.)
The fact remains the court cannot just 'imply' the capacity, but rather it is stipulated in the complaint. The Plaintiff has a duty to communicate this from the initiatiation of litigation
The fact remains the court cannot just 'imply' the capacity, but rather it is stipulated in the complaint. The Plaintiff has a duty to communicate this from the initiatiation of litigation
ryan 2025-03-17 07:11 p.m.
From what authority do you argue that this obligation arises?
ryanFrom what authority do you argue that this obligation arises?
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:15 p.m.
The very fact that tortuous offenses are delineated as either individual or qausi-official.
(I have a second prong to my argument, that really is only relevant if my initial motion is denied, but for the sake of time I'm going to hold off.)
Title 5 identifies two distinct capacities one can be sued under, and given that variability, a Plaintiff has a duty to identify, from the outset, under which they are bringing suit. This is enhanced by the fact that a Plaintiff incurs statutory obligations should the capacity fall under quasi-official (arbitration). Failing to specify a capacity is not simply a clerical oversight, but an error which forces the court to deny the complaint. Counsel for the plaintiff can't just 'assure' the court that they mean individual, it's duplicitous to do so.
(I have a second prong to my argument, that really is only relevant if my initial motion is denied, but for the sake of time I'm going to hold off.)
Title 5 identifies two distinct capacities one can be sued under, and given that variability, a Plaintiff has a duty to identify, from the outset, under which they are bringing suit. This is enhanced by the fact that a Plaintiff incurs statutory obligations should the capacity fall under quasi-official (arbitration). Failing to specify a capacity is not simply a clerical oversight, but an error which forces the court to deny the complaint. Counsel for the plaintiff can't just 'assure' the court that they mean individual, it's duplicitous to do so.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:16 p.m.
I'm sure I can grab case law, but I'm trying not to draw this out, I believe it's sufficient to argue this from a commonsense approach.
ryan 2025-03-17 07:20 p.m.
I, unfortunately do not share this understanding. As I understand it, our Courts have adopted the FCvRP when our rules aren't instructive. Given that the rules specify that the Plaintiff need not state the capacity of the Defendant, bar claims regarding jurisdiction, would it not be proper to adopt a rule, that is commonly used by all other Courts, that relies on the course of proceedings to determine capacity?
Second, if the only tort that delineates a different capacity is official misconduct, would it not be proper to assume that, barring pleading of official misconduct, any tort that is not under 5 M.S.C. 32xx (torts against the government), is to be construed in the Defendant's individual capacity>@Deleted User
Second, if the only tort that delineates a different capacity is official misconduct, would it not be proper to assume that, barring pleading of official misconduct, any tort that is not under 5 M.S.C. 32xx (torts against the government), is to be construed in the Defendant's individual capacity>
ryanI, unfortunately do not share this understanding. As I understand it, our Courts have adopted the FCvRP when our rules aren't instructive. Given that the rules specify that the Pla...
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:30 p.m.
I would, generally be inclined to agree, but this arises my second issue with the complaint, whether the original or amended:
The entirety of the claims made against my client relate to their duties/actions committed while working in their capacity as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Mayflower National Guard. (This is spelled out explictly, and repeatedly by the Plaintiff.) The incident quite literally could not have occurred while in their individual capacity, because my client would have been a civilian; lacking access to the MNG team, aircraft, and the authority to issue orders to guardsman. It would not be proper to accept an individual capacity suit, wherein the entirety of the claims derive from official acts.
If such is found to be true, which we believe is the only logical conclusion, the Plaintiff would be in violation of Title 5, specifically the requirement that official capacity suits be arbitrated by the Department of Justice- prior to filing with the District Court.
Responding to your second question regarding the delineation of official capacity/individual capacity torts, my argument lies partially in my above comments on the nature of this civil suit. It is entirely possible (and has commonly been done before) for a departmental employee to be sued for tortuous offenses, not specifically listed under the quasi-official statute, and yet still be sued in their official capacity. For example, a wrongful death case is brought against a law enforcement officer in their quasi-official capacity.
The simple existence of two distinct capacities, in my view, demands a specification from the outset of your initial filing. Why? Because the simple fact remains that any tort listed in Title 5 can be litigated in their official capacity, and not strictly individual.
The entirety of the claims made against my client relate to their duties/actions committed while working in their capacity as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Mayflower National Guard. (This is spelled out explictly, and repeatedly by the Plaintiff.) The incident quite literally could not have occurred while in their individual capacity, because my client would have been a civilian; lacking access to the MNG team, aircraft, and the authority to issue orders to guardsman. It would not be proper to accept an individual capacity suit, wherein the entirety of the claims derive from official acts.
If such is found to be true, which we believe is the only logical conclusion, the Plaintiff would be in violation of Title 5, specifically the requirement that official capacity suits be arbitrated by the Department of Justice- prior to filing with the District Court.
Responding to your second question regarding the delineation of official capacity/individual capacity torts, my argument lies partially in my above comments on the nature of this civil suit. It is entirely possible (and has commonly been done before) for a departmental employee to be sued for tortuous offenses, not specifically listed under the quasi-official statute, and yet still be sued in their official capacity. For example, a wrongful death case is brought against a law enforcement officer in their quasi-official capacity.
The simple existence of two distinct capacities, in my view, demands a specification from the outset of your initial filing. Why? Because the simple fact remains that any tort listed in Title 5 can be litigated in their official capacity, and not strictly individual.
Deleted UserI would, generally be inclined to agree, but this arises my second issue with the complaint, whether the original or amended: The entirety of the claims made against my client re...
ryan 2025-03-17 07:36 p.m.
Hmmm, I kind of understand what you're getting at, but would your argument not moot a lot of prior cases when an officer was sued in their individual capacity for something taken while they were on duty, e.g. false arrest, wrongful death. If you were to look at nearly every 4th amendment civil suit, for example, you'd find it was not against the Defendant in their official, but their individual capacity.
You then talk about quasi-official capacity, but it would seem that this capacity is only avaliable for official misconduct cases, why should we not be able to sue a cop in their individual capacity under 5 MSC 1 3101.4 but that it happened while he was acting as a cop?
You then talk about quasi-official capacity, but it would seem that this capacity is only avaliable for official misconduct cases, why should we not be able to sue a cop in their individual capacity under 5 MSC 1 3101.4 but that it happened while he was acting as a cop?
ryanHmmm, I kind of understand what you're getting at, but would your argument not moot a lot of prior cases when an officer was sued in their individual capacity for something taken w...
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:50 p.m.
Your honor, I believe you suppose one must be true while the other remains false. Generally, the capacity a civil lawsuit is filed under is driven by both state-specific tort laws, and other governing factors. While there is ample case law on instances such as the application of Qualified or even Sovereign Immunity, this would be addressed after satisfying the first issue.
You raise a good point regarding individual capacity lawsuits that have previously taken place. While I don't have the ability to evaluate the general guise of each of them, what I can attest to is that they typically assert a constitutional rights violation, which allows them to supersede a QI argument. Hence why they are heavily reliant on the language of the 4th Amendment. In these cases, the primary argument lies, in that, the officials actions were done outside the scope of their duties/on their own accord, and as such, are not actually official acts. (This is done mainly on the federal level to avoid their version of arbitration, to great success.) These determinations are made by the court in pre-trial stages, like which we currently reside. It is for these reasons, why I don't think my arguments would at all moot prior cases, but would actually refine the review of future complaints, and the capacity which they are filed under.
In response to one of your points, the quasi-official capacity lawsuit is very much able to be used in reference to any of Title 5's tortuous offenses. I believe there aremany prior Clark County District Court cases to affirm this statement; including cases in which I have actually litigated.
The mitigating circumstance that addresses all of these factors is the assertion that the Defendant acted outside the scope of their duties, in this case as an Installation Commander within the National Guard. The Plaintiff has failed to make this supposition, but rather has entirely relied on the allegation that my clients actions were done simply in error.
You raise a good point regarding individual capacity lawsuits that have previously taken place. While I don't have the ability to evaluate the general guise of each of them, what I can attest to is that they typically assert a constitutional rights violation, which allows them to supersede a QI argument. Hence why they are heavily reliant on the language of the 4th Amendment. In these cases, the primary argument lies, in that, the officials actions were done outside the scope of their duties/on their own accord, and as such, are not actually official acts. (This is done mainly on the federal level to avoid their version of arbitration, to great success.) These determinations are made by the court in pre-trial stages, like which we currently reside. It is for these reasons, why I don't think my arguments would at all moot prior cases, but would actually refine the review of future complaints, and the capacity which they are filed under.
In response to one of your points, the quasi-official capacity lawsuit is very much able to be used in reference to any of Title 5's tortuous offenses. I believe there are
The mitigating circumstance that addresses all of these factors is the assertion that the Defendant acted outside the scope of their duties, in this case as an Installation Commander within the National Guard. The Plaintiff has failed to make this supposition, but rather has entirely relied on the allegation that my clients actions were done simply in error.
ryan 2025-03-17 07:52 p.m.
I will take this under advisement.
ryan 2025-03-17 07:55 p.m.@Deleted User Let's switch to a different issue--the amendment. You cited MCvRP 17(a) as authority for your argument. This reads in relevant part:
"A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar, may so amend it at any time within 3 days after it is served."
Reading would seem to suggest two scenarios:
1. Before a responsive pleading it filed; or,
2. When no responsive pleading is permitted within three days after service if it has not been placed on the trial calendar.
You suggest that the second would require that I not allow amendment, correct?
"A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar, may so amend it at any time within 3 days after it is served."
Reading would seem to suggest two scenarios:
1. Before a responsive pleading it filed; or,
2. When no responsive pleading is permitted within three days after service if it has not been placed on the trial calendar.
You suggest that the second would require that I not allow amendment, correct?
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-17 07:56 p.m.
Yes, can I respond in like 20 minutes? I need to make a phone call
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:56 p.m.
I'll be prompt
ryan 2025-03-17 07:57 p.m.
Take your time, I am simply trying to fully flesh out your arguments so I can write a good ruling for you
ryanTake your time, I am simply trying to fully flesh out your arguments so I can write a good ruling for you
Deleted User 2025-03-17 07:58 p.m.
For sure, I’ll have a response to you shortly
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-17 08:28 p.m.
So yes, you're correct in your analysis of my arguments. While Rule 17 is poorly worded, the end result is what I explained in my initial argument:
In general, the ability to amend a complaint is permitted, by rule, within 3 days of filing, unless:
Both tenants spelled out under Rule 17 are fulfilled; The Defense is entitled (and obligated) to submit a responsive pleading, and the matter is already before the trial court and is on the docket of a presiding Magistrate. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to amend their complaint, and as such it should be struck by this court, with an instruction to re-file.
In general, the ability to amend a complaint is permitted, by rule, within 3 days of filing, unless:
"...the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed on the trial calendar"
Both tenants spelled out under Rule 17 are fulfilled; The Defense is entitled (and obligated) to submit a responsive pleading, and the matter is already before the trial court and is on the docket of a presiding Magistrate. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to amend their complaint, and as such it should be struck by this court, with an instruction to re-file.
ryan 2025-03-17 08:32 p.m.
So if you are obligated to file a responsive pleading, should I not consider it under the first prong, given the conditional nature of the second?
ryanSo if you are obligated to file a responsive pleading, should I not consider it under the first prong, given the conditional nature of the second?
Deleted User 2025-03-17 08:34 p.m.
You may, absolutely. Again, the wording is poor, but I read it as an either/or statement;
An amendment cannot take place if either
1: a responsive pleading must be given
or
2: the matter is before a trial court (i.e already processed and allocated to a docket)
An amendment cannot take place if either
1: a responsive pleading must be given
or
2: the matter is before a trial court (i.e already processed and allocated to a docket)
Deleted User 2025-03-17 08:35 p.m.
Both of which are present
ryan 2025-03-17 08:36 p.m.
So you are advocating that 17(A) be construed as proposing two separate prongs, instead of two scenarios each with their own outcomes?
ryanSo you are advocating that 17(A) be construed as proposing two separate prongs, instead of two scenarios each with their own outcomes?
Deleted User 2025-03-17 08:37 p.m.
I don't really want to impose opinion into the verbiage, even with its poor structure, but I think it clearly indicates two prongs which would prohibit amendment; which are the ones I just listed
Deleted User 2025-03-17 08:38 p.m.
The key indicator to me is the "If" which begins the section we're referring to.
Deleted User 2025-03-17 08:38 p.m.
It develops a clear exclusionary/exception clause to Rule 17
ryan 2025-03-17 08:38 p.m.
Okay, thank you very much this is exactly what I needed
ryan 2025-03-17 08:39 p.m.@huddy. You're up
ryan 2025-03-17 11:39 p.m.
Actually I do not need you
ryan 2025-03-17 11:47 p.m.Minute Order Regarding the Defendant's Motion to Strike
Defendant's motion to strike the civil complaint, verbalized in this channel, is herebydenied . The Court is not convinced that the Plaintiff has an obligation to explicit state the capacity of the suit. Rather, the capacity ought to be properly determined by the course of proceedings. But even if the Plaintiff does have an obligation to specify, the amended complaint does specify, alleviating any concerns regarding arbitration and other procedural matters. Furthermore, the Defendant's reading of Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1) misconstrues the grammatical separation of the rule's two clauses. The existence of a comma and coordinating conjunction affirms the Court's finding. Given this case falls under the first clause of 17(a)(1), the Plaintiff may amend their complaint at any time before a responsive pleading is filed. Given that no responsive pleading has been filed, the amending complaint is accepted .
Defendant's motion to strike the civil complaint, verbalized in this channel, is hereby
ryan 2025-03-17 11:47 p.m.@Deleted User @huddy.
ryan 2025-03-17 11:47 p.m.
The Defendant is hereby directed to file a responsive pleading by EOD (CDT) 3/21/2025.
huddy. 2025-03-18 03:47 a.m.
Thank you sir.
huddy. 2025-03-18 03:47 a.m.
Sorry was asleep
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-18 09:13 a.m.
Okay, that’s fine. We move to strike the amended complaint
huddy. 2025-03-18 12:36 p.m.
Why?
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:36 p.m.
In compiling some case law and arguments
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:36 p.m.
Im*
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:36 p.m.
It’ll be sent later
huddy. 2025-03-18 12:39 p.m.
This guy bruh
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:43 p.m.
I know, I know, I'm forcing you to do your job
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:52 p.m.@ryan Is your honor going to permit us to say our arguments here, in lieu of having to make a written document?
Deleted User 2025-03-18 12:52 p.m.
To my knowledge, the ROP permit this
ryan 2025-03-18 01:02 p.m.
Yes
ryan 2025-03-18 01:02 p.m.
I'd prefer that until we get to the responsive pleading
ryan 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
Everything substantial after that, I'd like paper
ryan 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
You have the floor @Deleted User
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
Thank you, I have a template pulled up if we need to put it to paper
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
This is essentially going to be a motion to dismiss, based on Qualified Immunity
ryan 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
Hmm let me stop you counselor
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:03 p.m.
Is the court opposed to hearing a MTD prior to a responsive pleading being filed? I have just checked the Rules of Procedure
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:04 p.m.
There is nothing that barrs us from filing a MTD prior to filing a responsive pleading
ryan 2025-03-18 01:04 p.m.
I will count your MTD as a responsive pleading and stay the response timer until it's decided\
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:04 p.m.
Okay perfect
ryan 2025-03-18 01:04 p.m.
I would like this MTD on paper given it will be construed as an intially responsive pleading
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:05 p.m.
That'll be fine, I expected that
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:05 p.m.
I've got a doc pulled up
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:05 p.m.
I hope to have it in by end of day
ryan 2025-03-18 01:05 p.m.
That's fine
ryan 2025-03-18 01:06 p.m.
I won't give you a particulary timeframe, just be hasty please
Deleted User 2025-03-18 01:06 p.m.
Will do
Deleted User 2025-03-18 05:15 p.m.@ryan Might need another day, I'm several pages in, but not ready to file
ryan 2025-03-18 05:16 p.m.
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-18 05:16 p.m.
I'm pretty sure we still have like three days for the original response due date
Deleted User 2025-03-18 05:16 p.m.
anyways
Deleted User 2025-03-18 10:48 p.m.Courtesy Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1er1Cw0szP0G31PekBK_R_8VFvmHwHDWi/view?usp=sharing
cc:@ryan @huddy.
cc:
ryan 2025-03-18 10:49 p.m.
48 hours @huddy.
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:29 p.m.
Hello @ryan
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:29 p.m.
Please reply if online right now, I have a question
ryan 2025-03-19 02:29 p.m.
ryan 2025-03-19 02:29 p.m.
You've caught me at a good time, whats up
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:29 p.m.
So defendant cites this
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
I'm already ready for this
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
heheheh
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
Yet further down in the exact same act, it is once again repeated
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
And it's repealed
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
And I checked the bill that repealed it, and it wasn't due to the fact that it was repeated, the Senator repealed it because he thought it was harsh and included it in a bill laxxing flight restrictions
ryan 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
Okay
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
So I thought you could weigh in your very large legal brain
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:30 p.m.
to help us understand
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
if the regulation is active or not
ryan 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
If it was replaced by a different act and the new act contained no savings clause, then the act is repealed in toto
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
I have several points
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
Comments
2Labels
RETURNED FAVORABLY, PASSED SENATE, ADOPTED W/O GOVERNOR'S SIGNATUREhuddy. 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
Here is the act
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
This is not my argument, but I'm genuinly confused lol
Deleted UserI have several points
ryan 2025-03-19 02:31 p.m.
Put 'em on the record
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
EVEN IF it was repealed, which I'm having trouble confirming, it was active at the time of the incident, and binding
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
Number 2
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
How are you having trouble confirming
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
MAA regulations incorporate the exact statutory language
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
Are you accusing me of faking a screenshot
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
into flight regulation
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
MAA regulations are not binding in the court of law bud
Deleted UserEVEN IF it was repealed, which I'm having trouble confirming, it was active at the time of the incident, and binding
ryan 2025-03-19 02:32 p.m.
Hmm, in criminal matters it wouldn't matter but in civil does it differntiate?
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
If someone violated MAA regulations, that's a MAA thing, not a court thing
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
Why is he being so agressive
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
Can I make my record
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
without being interrupted
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
go on
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:33 p.m.
I'll compile everything again,
ryan 2025-03-19 02:34 p.m.
One at a time genltemen
ryan 2025-03-19 02:34 p.m.
You will both have ample opportunity to speak
ryan 2025-03-19 02:34 p.m.
We'll start with pancakes and james can go from there
ryan 2025-03-19 02:39 p.m.@Deleted User the floor is yours
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:40 p.m.
Sorry, got DMed by 5 different people at once, I'm almost done
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:46 p.m.
Alright, there are several things to take into consideration:
The M.S.C shows it being both active and repealed. That's a non-issue, because it was active at the time of the incident, even if it has since been repealed; such an argument is simply mute. The pilot was bound by the statutory language at the time of the altercation.
Additionally, the Plaintiff is bound by MAA regulation (which carbon copies the statute on remaining 500 studs outside of the Fort Standish MEZ, in their policies), and as I explain in our Motion to Dismiss, the standard set in Fitzgerald would apply, should we show that the operator was not acting in accordance with the law. (i.e MAA regulation are binding for all pilots, and is derived from the State Code.)
I'm going to wrap up with this statute (attached image), which I tried really hard to find so I could include it in the MTD, but I'll just note it hear for the record. The Defendant was empowered by color of law to order national guardsman to fire on the aircraft.
The M.S.C shows it being both active and repealed. That's a non-issue, because it was active at the time of the incident, even if it has since been repealed; such an argument is simply mute. The pilot was bound by the statutory language at the time of the altercation.
Additionally, the Plaintiff is bound by MAA regulation (which carbon copies the statute on remaining 500 studs outside of the Fort Standish MEZ, in their policies), and as I explain in our Motion to Dismiss, the standard set in Fitzgerald would apply, should we show that the operator was not acting in accordance with the law. (i.e MAA regulation are binding for all pilots, and is derived from the State Code.)
I'm going to wrap up with this statute (attached image), which I tried really hard to find so I could include it in the MTD, but I'll just note it hear for the record. The Defendant was empowered by color of law to order national guardsman to fire on the aircraft.
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:47 p.m.
This is the MAA regulation:
ryan 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
Okay Mr Hamilton, your turn
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
What do you mean it was active at the time?
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
It was repealed February 23rd
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
The incident happened on March 3rd
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
Is this a joke
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
Oh spring chicken, for a bill to not be signed by the governor, and be enacted into law, it must sit for a waiting period
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:48 p.m.
...
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
So if it passed the senate on the 23rd, the law would still be active at the time of the incident
ryan 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
Okay
ryan 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
Timeframe
ryan 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
What is the timeframe of passage/repeal/the incident
ryan 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
James you answer
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
I may be mistaken
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
but irregardless
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:49 p.m.
One second
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:50 p.m.
Even if that statute wasn't active, they would still have been in violation of standing pilot regulations regarding prohibited flight areas. Such violation would contravene the State Code, which empowers the MAA to regulate flight within the State of Mayflower.
ryan 2025-03-19 02:51 p.m.
Okay here's what I'll do
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:51 p.m.
Again, the only test the court must review, to pass fitzgerald, is whether there is a demonstrative showing that the Defendant acted outside their own statutory authority.
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:51 p.m.
It wasn't active at the time, it was repealed as it is now
ryan 2025-03-19 02:51 p.m.@huddy. you can cover this in ur reply to the mtd, i'll extend the timeframe by 24 hours
ryan 2025-03-19 02:52 p.m.
Pancakes can have 24 hours to briefly respond after that
ryan 2025-03-19 02:52 p.m.
and we'll go from there
Deleted Userryan 2025-03-19 02:52 p.m.
Please have it in 3/21 10P CDT
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:52 p.m.
Are you accepting that a contravention of MAA regulations but not state code are an empowerment to excuse the actions committed by Defendant?
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:52 p.m.
Not arguing, inquiring so I know whether to bother arguing that in my MTD
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:53 p.m.
Could I comment
huddy.Are you accepting that a contravention of MAA regulations but not state code are an empowerment to excuse the actions committed by Defendant?
ryan 2025-03-19 02:53 p.m.
I would suggest that given the language of our QI statute, it would be best to address everything that would potentially abrogate the Defendant's culpability here
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:53 p.m.
Alright well we have a completely different argument anyway
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
So we won't address this
ryan 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
Okay
ryan 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
if you're not going to address this, then I won't give you extra time
ryan 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
but if you feel it necessary to address, the extra time will be given
huddy. 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
I'm writing it up rn so yeah
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
I wouldn't encouraging focusing on the elements of Fitzgerald, that's settled law
Deleted User 2025-03-19 02:54 p.m.
but that's just me
ryan 2025-03-19 02:55 p.m.
okay back to studying !
ryan 2025-03-19 02:55 p.m.
why did i take this case
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:04 p.m.@ryan @Deleted User courtesy
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:05 p.m.
Oh this is gonna be easy
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:05 p.m.@ryan When you have had time to read, I can give my rebuttal which won’t take very long
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:07 p.m.
State Pilots in Command are allowed within 500 studs of FS. Regulations specifically identify Civilian Pilots in Command as not being allowed within 500 studs. The regulations are not vague, and even if you say they are, the literal writer and designer of such regulations states that when it says 'civilian', it means 'civilian'.
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:08 p.m.
Somebody didn’t do their homework, not to worry I will address it once the court has reviewed your motion
ryan 2025-03-19 04:14 p.m.
Let me finish sum rq
ryan 2025-03-19 04:14 p.m.
gents
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:19 p.m.
Blud always be muttering to himself thinking he him 
ryan 2025-03-19 04:20 p.m.
why are you appearing of like
huddy.Blud always be muttering to himself thinking he him
ryan 2025-03-19 04:20 p.m.
all of the cases on my docket
ryan 2025-03-19 04:20 p.m.
4/6
ryan 2025-03-19 04:20 p.m.
insane
Deleted Userhuddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
why did bro send an empty gif of a black and red wall(edited)
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
Okay ! I will have a ruling for you all by saturday
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
SATURDAY
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
wonderful
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
i love you your honor
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
Yes i have a test today and one on friday
ryanOkay ! I will have a ruling for you all by saturday
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
I’d like to respond to something he said
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
Sure
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
Okay I’ll reply to his motion
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
You've already put enough bullshit on the record
ryanwhy are you appearing of like
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
i'm stalking you sir
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
So you can read it later
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
What's a little more
ryan 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
That'll be fine
Deleted UserSo you can read it later
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:21 p.m.
drop the arguments here
ryan 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
Drop the coords
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
Im on a run
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
I’ll reply shortly
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
casually discording on a run
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
Voice to text
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
oh thats sick
ryan 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
YOu better translate this
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
why isnt there a bunch of moans in between words then
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
as you gasp for air
ryan 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
into jamician
huddy.why isnt there a bunch of moans in between words then
ryan 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
???
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
Ayo
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:22 p.m.
i thought fatties be grabbling for air as they run
ryan 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
You guys suck at citing cases
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
idk i cant say from experience
ryan 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
Have you never read a bluebook?
ryanYou guys suck at citing cases
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
I like my citation format
ryanYou guys suck at citing cases
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
did i even need to cite a single case
ryan 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
Yes you did
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
like @Deleted User your own case laws disproved your own points sorry lmfao
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
That’s false
huddy.like @Deleted User your own case laws disproved your own points sorry lmfao
ryan 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
MTD granted
ryan 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
iM kidding !
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
bud
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
your honor*
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:23 p.m.
My case law is perfectly applicable
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
Go read Fitzgerald
ryan 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
Lacks good analysis 
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
but like you based it off something that you misinterpreted
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
my client is not a civilian pilot in command
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
Just wait for my response
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
like your case law would make sense if my client was in the wrong
huddy.my client is not a civilian pilot in command
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
He actually is
ryan 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
You two should just kiss lowkey this is getting annoying
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
You should just post a ruling so our chronically active asses can get a move on
ryan 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
I also heard the SG is going to grace us with an amici curaie brief
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
I spoke with the administrator of the MAA
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:24 p.m.
Way for my glorious response
ryan 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
sosaturday
ryan 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
tenatively
ryan 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
depends what i do friday night 
ryantenatively
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
I’ll have response in shortly
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
That's your fifth time saying that
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
I don't think we ever doubted your commitment to roblox law
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
Honey I know you ain’t grand standing
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
honey
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
bud
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
You literally play the exact same game
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
i dont
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:25 p.m.
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:26 p.m.
im on strike
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:26 p.m.
lmfao
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:26 p.m.
until me and my buddies building gets added
Deleted User 2025-03-19 04:26 p.m.
Good luck on your Roblox strike
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:27 p.m.
thanks sir
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:27 p.m.
i downloaded rdr2, ready or not, steep, msfs 2020 and beamng to try and help my cravings
huddy. 2025-03-19 04:27 p.m.
i couldnt stop clarking though
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:10 p.m.
Further proof detailing that my client is a State Pilot in Command (Idk why you are trying to say he isn't)
683.11 KB
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:10 p.m.
I haven’t said he isn’t a state pilot, I argued something different. I will explain
Deleted UserHe actually is
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:12 p.m.
.
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:12 p.m.
You’re either one or the other
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:12 p.m.
Just wait for my response and you’ll understand
ryan 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
guys
ryan 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
the SGO is gonna file an amicus brief to fix this up
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
Nick told me he isn’t
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
I spoke with him
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
If the court would wait twenty minutes I’ll clarify some stuff and we will be on our way
ryan 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
he has expressed his intent
ryan 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
to me to do it
ryan 2025-03-19 05:13 p.m.
I told him he is welcome up and until saturday
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:27 p.m.
im going to sleep
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:27 p.m.
pls dont argue when I’m not here 
huddy.im going to sleep
ryan 2025-03-19 05:27 p.m.
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:27 p.m.
wha
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
i mean like verbal points
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
cuz i cant rebut
ryan 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
We do not allow sleep
ryan 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
Sorry sir
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
I didnt say sleep did i
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:28 p.m.
i meant diddy party
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:29 p.m.
Silly me
ryan 2025-03-19 05:29 p.m.
ALso not allowe
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:29 p.m.
i meant uh
ryan 2025-03-19 05:29 p.m.
You will remain present here until you count to 1.0x10^57
huddy. 2025-03-19 05:29 p.m.
sitting and smiling for 8 hours (man breaks in halfway through)
Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:35 p.m.
Okay!
ryan 2025-03-19 05:42 p.m.
what is the rank of the Defendant @Deleted User
ryan 2025-03-19 05:43 p.m.
soryr need it for clerical reasons
huddy.Deleted User 2025-03-19 05:49 p.m.Every Pilot who operates an Aircraft within the airspace of the State of Mayflower must adhere to all regulations regarding published Special Use Airspace. These areas are depicted on official MAA aeronautical charts.
Prohibited Areas. Prohibited Areas are usually established for reasons of state security or welfare. Aircraft are stri...
Plaintiff continues to assert that MAA regulations do not apply to them because of their status as a "State Pilot-in-Command." Not only is this duplicitous, it's simply false. Defense counsel reached out to the Administrator of the MAA, and did independent research into the Aviation Administration's flight regulations. (Link to trello included) It's important to note, that the Defendant has statutory authority to fire on aircraft in breach of flight regulations. (See 6 M.S.C 6 Section 2305 (Image attached). He is a Senior Officer [Lieutenant Colonel] in the National Guard.
MAA regulations makeno distinction between Civilian and State Pilots. Under the regulation, Special Use Airspace, the policy reads:
Fort Standish, and the area around it, falls under a special use airspace
The Plaintiff has already conceded in their complaint, and on the record, that they were within an unauthorized location. Their argument, however, is that they were allowed to break such regulations given their employment within the MAA.
This assertion, while shown to be false, also afforded the Defendant to take the actions they did. The Plaintiff has inadvertently shown that they fulfilled the statutory elements of 2305, justifying the very use of force they take issue with. Again, as listed within our Motion to Dismiss, he showed immense restraint before significant force was ordered.
MAA - Trello: https://trello.com/c/vPqZmCJW/14-special-use-airspace
MAA regulations make
Every Pilot who operates an Aircraft within the airspace of the State of Mayflower must adhere to all regulations regarding published Special Use Airspace
The Plaintiff has already conceded in their complaint, and on the record, that they were within an unauthorized location. Their argument, however, is that they were allowed to break such regulations given their employment within the MAA.
This assertion, while shown to be false, also afforded the Defendant to take the actions they did. The Plaintiff has inadvertently shown that they fulfilled the statutory elements of 2305, justifying the very use of force they take issue with. Again, as listed within our Motion to Dismiss, he showed immense restraint before significant force was ordered.
(a)huddy. 2025-03-19 06:14 p.m.
I respond tmrw
ryan 2025-03-19 11:39 p.m.@huddy. 6. As Plaintiff’s aircraft hovered at 494 studs above the ground, a military
helicopter, operated by Mayflower National Guardsmen, hovered at a higher altitude
around the Fort Standish Entrance, however did not approach or come near to Plaintiff,
nor did they issue a warning or order to Plaintiff to immediately leave the area
Was your Plaintiff above the military exclusive zone or is this a horizontal distance
helicopter, operated by Mayflower National Guardsmen, hovered at a higher altitude
around the Fort Standish Entrance, however did not approach or come near to Plaintiff,
nor did they issue a warning or order to Plaintiff to immediately leave the area
Was your Plaintiff above the military exclusive zone or is this a horizontal distance
ryanhuddy. 2025-03-20 03:23 a.m.
No he was not at all in the MEZ
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:23 a.m.
He was in public airspace away from the MEZ
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:23 a.m.
On the other side of the beltway
Deleted UserPlaintiff continues to assert that MAA regulations do not apply to them because of their status as a "State Pilot-in-Command." Not only is this duplicitous, it's simply false. Defe...
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:29 a.m.
Where does it say 'Fort Standish, and the area around it, falls under a special use airspace'
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:46 a.m.New Light
Whilst we have previously been arguing about whether or not my client is allowed within 500 studs of Fort Standish (he is), a developer reached out to me and showed me evidence depicting clearly that my client was not even within 500 studs. I was shown that a 500 stud block that was placed from the beginning of the MEZ, and my client is several studs out of bounds of the range.
We never stated in our criminal information that he was 494 studs within the zone, we stated that he was at 494 studs of altitude and that he was in public airspace.
Whilst we have previously been arguing about whether or not my client is allowed within 500 studs of Fort Standish (he is), a developer reached out to me and showed me evidence depicting clearly that my client was not even within 500 studs. I was shown that a 500 stud block that was placed from the beginning of the MEZ, and my client is several studs out of bounds of the range.
We never stated in our criminal information that he was 494 studs within the zone, we stated that he was at 494 studs of altitude and that he was in public airspace.
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:46 a.m.
So Defendant's motion to dismiss is completely nul.
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:47 a.m.
In fact, Defence Counsel received this information two days ago yet refused to say anything and even continued to file motions for the Defendant in bad faith whilst knowing that his motions were based on falsehoods...
huddy. 2025-03-20 03:47 a.m.
cc: @ryan @Deleted User
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-20 06:06 a.m.
Your honor we can provide video
huddy.Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:07 a.m.
We can respond to this, later this evening
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:07 a.m.
It’s a nice ploy
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:07 a.m.
But lacks legal merit
Deleted UserIt’s a nice ploy
huddy. 2025-03-20 06:58 a.m.
Excuse me?
huddy. 2025-03-20 06:58 a.m.
You don’t need legal merit to use your eyes and see that Plaintiff wasn’t even within 500 studs lmfao
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:59 a.m.
As I said, I can respond this evening
huddy. 2025-03-20 06:59 a.m.
can you really
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:59 a.m.
Buddy it’s time for school, the bus is leaving. Run along
huddy. 2025-03-20 09:19 a.m.
Lmfao this guy
ryan 2025-03-20 12:57 p.m.
Ahhhh guys
ryan 2025-03-20 12:57 p.m.
This is the real march madness
ryan 2025-03-20 01:02 p.m.
So here's my issue
ryan 2025-03-20 01:02 p.m.@huddy. @Deleted User
ryan 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
The complaint states as fact the Defendant was 494 away
ryan 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
I have to take that as true
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
It doesn't
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
Please show me where it states that sir
ryan 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
I am waiting for the SG
ryanI am waiting for the SG
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
Where does it say Defendant was 494 away
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:03 p.m.
In your complaint
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
Actually it says it
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
Twonplaces
ryan 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
He says 494 above the ground
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
Yeah
ryan 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
Near MEZ
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m. 
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:04 p.m.
What's wrong with that
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
The regulations are about studs away from the fort, not vertically above the ground
ryan 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
How near is near the MEZ
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
Not in the MEZ nofly zone...
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
He was across the betlway
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
Can we litigate this later when I’m not working
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
The complaint states 494 studs off the ground, not 494 studs away from MEZ horizontally
ryan 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
I don't see that in your complaint !
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
Well we are now establishing it
Deleted UserCan we litigate this later when I’m not working
ryan 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
I'll ping u with the important stuff
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
I never stated he was in the nofly zone
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
(which doesn't apply to him)
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
You weren’t specific
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
It’s not our burden
ryan 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
^^
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:05 p.m.
He's allowed to be 494 studs vertically
ryan 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
Okay
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
That’s also not true
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
Again, can we save this for later
ryan 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
So i am waiting on SG confirmation on something through amicus
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
I’m in the middle of work
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:06 p.m.
when do you finish work
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
Also by the way it clearly states public airspace
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
within 500 studs of FS is not public airspace
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
so I was not vague at all
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
No, now you’re trying to frame stuff improperly
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
I'm not framing anything
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
I'm showing you something bud
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:07 p.m.
I quoted the complaint in my motion
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
The court knows what I’m referring to
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
Again, I’m literally in the middle of work, wait until 5pm
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
Your false motion which rests on the false facts that
a. my client was within the area
b. my client isnt allowed in the area
a. my client was within the area
b. my client isnt allowed in the area
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
right
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
No need to resort to platitudes
ryan 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m. 
ryan 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:08 p.m.
Your complaint is a joke though
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
You were told two days ago by the head of the MAA that my client wasn't within 500 studs and you were presented with evidence
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
Can the court rein in this vexatious litigant
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
Yet you continued to file motions on behalf of the defendant claiming that he was
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
You continued to argue and represent him in court in 'good faith'
Deleted UserCan the court rein in this vexatious litigant
ryan 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
It's more entertaining to watch this
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
No, that’s a misrepresentation
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
And you didn't share this with any of us
ryan 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
Hush hush both of you
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
That's not a misrepresentation at all boy
ryan 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
You're clogging the record now
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:09 p.m.
I’m gonna let the big man think he won, I’ll reply this evening
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
Back in my day they hung folks for this
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
Alright
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
Your day was 2006 watching Disney channel
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
Get out of here kid
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
'disney channel'
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:10 p.m.
back in my day we aint had no television boxes or watchamacallits
ryan used /remove
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-20 01:10 p.m. @ryan has removed @huddy. from the case channel.
Case Modified
ryan used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-03-20 01:11 p.m. @ryan has added @huddy. to the case channel.
Case Modified
ryan 2025-03-20 01:11 p.m.
Quiet
ryan 2025-03-20 01:11 p.m.
Please
ryan 2025-03-20 01:12 p.m.
I will not let this be a kangaroo court
ryan 2025-03-20 01:12 p.m.
You can argue in chatroom
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:12 p.m.
Is the court still good for my response this evening
ryan 2025-03-20 01:13 p.m.
Sure
ryan 2025-03-20 01:13 p.m.
But word to the wise
ryan 2025-03-20 01:13 p.m.
For BOTH of you if this continues you'll be put in the same jail cell
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:13 p.m.
Can I utilize the “he started it” argument
ryan 2025-03-20 01:14 p.m.
No because your frontal lobe is fully developed
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:14 p.m.
Dang it, you’re right
ryan 2025-03-20 01:15 p.m.
If you were a hormonal 14 year old sure
Deleted User 2025-03-20 01:16 p.m.
At least you recognize opposing counsel’s signs and symptoms
ryan 2025-03-20 01:17 p.m.
I said enough !
ryanIf you were a hormonal 14 year old sure
huddy. 2025-03-20 01:34 p.m.
Sir
ryan 2025-03-20 01:36 p.m.
?
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:24 p.m.@ryan reply incoming
ryan 2025-03-20 06:24 p.m.
oh god
ryan 2025-03-20 06:24 p.m.
Please see chamber-information too
ryan 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.
applies from here on out
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.
Okay can this respons be on the record
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.
and rest paper
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.
I don't foresee this going further
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.@ryan
ryan 2025-03-20 06:25 p.m.
That's fine
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:26 p.m.
Thanks
ryan 2025-03-20 06:30 p.m.
I am trying to learn implicit differentiation
ryan 2025-03-20 06:30 p.m.
Could you assist?
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:31 p.m.
Is that a math thing?
ryan 2025-03-20 06:31 p.m.
affirm
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:31 p.m.
uhh dm me the problem, I'll see if my engineer at work knows
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:31 p.m.
Back to crafting my masterpiece
huddy.Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:49 p.m.
Alrighty.
I am first going to address the language contained within the Plaintiff's civil complaint, then move on to their image.
In their most recent response, counsel for the Plaintiff asserts they 'never stated' that their client was within 500 studs of the FS Prohibited Area. There are several flaws with this supposition. First, as we pointed to in our Motion to Dismiss, the very language of their complaint indicates that their client was either actually or potentially operating in the Prohibited area.
See:
and
We didn't choose the verbiage that counsel used in their drafting of this filing. Whether inadvertent or not, their description of the Plaintiff's actions very clearly develops the image that, at the very least, the Plaintiff was in very close proximity to a prohibited location. Considering the totality of the circumstances at-hand, in addition to the belief by the Defendant that the aircraft was in violation of state laws; the objective reasonableness standard has been fulfilled.
Furthermore!
Plaintiff asserts that this newfound image somehow verifies that his client was not within 500 studs of the Fort Standish Prohibited Area. This is duplicitous for a plethora of reasons.
1) There is no scientific explanation or verification provided which actually advances his assertion. What's more, it can clearly be seen that the length of the prohibited area extendsbeyond the Highway. If the court is interested, we can provide several angles from the incident, which clearly shows the aircraft to be within the the unauthorized buffer zone.
I am first going to address the language contained within the Plaintiff's civil complaint, then move on to their image.
In their most recent response, counsel for the Plaintiff asserts they 'never stated' that their client was within 500 studs of the FS Prohibited Area. There are several flaws with this supposition. First, as we pointed to in our Motion to Dismiss, the very language of their complaint indicates that their client was either actually or potentially operating in the Prohibited area.
“[SuccessInProgress] was flying a helicopter...[in] airspace near the Fort Standish Military Exclusion Zone”
and
“hovered at 494 studs above the ground.”
We didn't choose the verbiage that counsel used in their drafting of this filing. Whether inadvertent or not, their description of the Plaintiff's actions very clearly develops the image that, at the very least, the Plaintiff was in very close proximity to a prohibited location. Considering the totality of the circumstances at-hand, in addition to the belief by the Defendant that the aircraft was in violation of state laws; the objective reasonableness standard has been fulfilled.
Furthermore!
Plaintiff asserts that this newfound image somehow verifies that his client was not within 500 studs of the Fort Standish Prohibited Area. This is duplicitous for a plethora of reasons.
1) There is no scientific explanation or verification provided which actually advances his assertion. What's more, it can clearly be seen that the length of the prohibited area extends
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:49 p.m.
2) The legal standard that affords the Defendant Qualified Immunity boils down to the court's evaluation of the allegations, in contrast the statutory parameters which govern their actions. We have supplied two separate statutes which grant broad authority to Lieutenant Colonel SnaketheBigBoss in the defense of the military installations. This includes a statute granting legal authority to fire upon aircraft operating within this Prohibited Area. (This was ordered after repeated warnings, and attempts to raise the Plaintiff on the radio.)
Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot usurp the standard set in Fitzgerald. We have supplied the court with an abusrd amount of materials which give legal justification to the actions taken by the Defendant. It is now the court's duty to preserve the integrity of precedent, through the dismissal of this case.
(Attaching the relevant statutes as well.)
Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot usurp the standard set in Fitzgerald. We have supplied the court with an abusrd amount of materials which give legal justification to the actions taken by the Defendant. It is now the court's duty to preserve the integrity of precedent, through the dismissal of this case.
(Attaching the relevant statutes as well.)
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:50 p.m.
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:50 p.m.
cc: @ryan
ryan 2025-03-20 06:52 p.m.
Okay thanks
Deleted User 2025-03-20 06:53 p.m.
No problemo
huddy. 2025-03-21 03:33 a.m.
Can I respond to this? How can you quote my Complaint and not include the word 'public airspace' in the quote - you are clearly selectively editing it to try and pretend that I never indicated that my client was in public airspace and not within the 500 stud nofly zone. Secondly, how does saying that somebody is 494 studs above the ground, incriminate them in any way??
huddy. 2025-03-21 03:36 a.m.
Secondly, we can provide numerous images and evidence showing that my client wasn't in the nofly zone. @ryan Would you allow us to prevent this during trial or before trial to help you make your decision? We strongly maintain th at we should be allowed to present this evidence as we clearly detailed that Plaintiff was not within the 500 stud limit. Complaining that stating that my client was X studs off the ground, and that X being around 500, is just invalid because he can be however high he wants to be - if Defendant saw that and got confused then that's on him because we clearly detailed that he was in public airspace.
huddy. 2025-03-21 03:37 a.m.
But I can't lie, this is just abominable lmfao - you can't make a point stating 'First, as we pointed to in our Motion to Dismiss, the very language of their complaint indicates that their client was either actually or potentially operating in the Prohibited area.' and then specifically cut the quote so that it doesn't include the bit that outlines clearly that they were not operating in a prohibited area
huddy. 2025-03-21 04:34 a.m.
No one is doubting that Defendant is allowed to shoot down unauthorized aircraft in restricted airspace, but Plaintiff wasn’t even in the airspace, which we will provide evidence of if @ryan allows, so therefore no qualified immunity shall be awarded
Deleted User 2025-03-21 07:17 a.m.
I won’t dissolve into arguments because the court asked for further arguments to be in paper. As I said, I can’t choose the words you included. The conclusion as to where your client actually was leaves ample room for debate, given the language of the complaint. That alone is justification, and satisfies Fitzgerald
huddy. 2025-03-21 09:12 a.m.
It doesn’t because my client is legally entitled to be in that airspace even though he wasn’t
huddy. 2025-03-21 09:12 a.m.
1
But I will not argue per the Judge’s request
1huddy. 2025-03-21 02:26 p.m.@ryan May I submit evidence clearly showing that Plaintiff was in public airspace, using screenshots?
Deleted User 2025-03-21 02:27 p.m.
We’ve been back and forth amply, I would just rather the court rule on Saturday
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:31 p.m.
You made an argument stating that it is vague, but it isn’t vague at all. Hence why I want to show the court in depth screenshots to defy your point, which had no visual evidence.
ryan 2025-03-21 02:32 p.m.
Guys !
ryan 2025-03-21 02:33 p.m.
Guess what i don't consider
ryan 2025-03-21 02:33 p.m.
On mtd
ryan 2025-03-21 02:33 p.m.
Evidence n
ryan 2025-03-21 02:33 p.m.
I am looking strictly at the complaint
ryanI am looking strictly at the complaint
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:39 p.m.
Ok, I really fail to see how the complaint is not clear
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:39 p.m.
What is not clear about ‘public airspace’
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:39 p.m.
Public airspace does not refer to a no fly zone or somewhere that is listed under MEC and Flight Code that it is restricted….
Deleted User 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
I’m not going to keep litigating the issue
Deleted User 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
We’ve both made ample records on this
Deleted User 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
Can we please enjoy the weekend and just let me review
Deleted User 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
Him*
ryan 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
Oh my gosh
ryan 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
You two
ryan 2025-03-21 02:40 p.m.
Are an old married couple
Deleted UserI’m not going to keep litigating the issue
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:41 p.m.
I’m not talking to you sir
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:42 p.m.
But ok
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:42 p.m.@ryan So what happens now
ryan 2025-03-21 02:42 p.m.
You guys stop cluttering the record
ryan 2025-03-21 02:42 p.m.
I finish my schoolwork
ryan 2025-03-21 02:42 p.m.
Drink
ryan 2025-03-21 02:43 p.m.
And write this ruling
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:45 p.m.
Alright so no more motions then
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:46 p.m.@ryan I haven’t been able to write an official response that affirms the fact that my client wasn’t even in the restriction zone
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:46 p.m.
we only covered the back and forth over if my client was allowed in the restriction zone
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:46 p.m.
but the complaint says he wasnt and that wasn’t included in the motions
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:47 p.m.
And the motion was written adressing the permissions, ignoring the fact that my client was never there
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:47 p.m.
since we did a lot of chat arguments
ryan 2025-03-21 02:48 p.m.
Again
ryan 2025-03-21 02:48 p.m.
I'm looking at the complaint nothing else
ryan 2025-03-21 02:48 p.m.
If you wrote it good you'll be fine
huddy. 2025-03-21 02:53 p.m.
Oh right ok
Deleted User 2025-03-21 03:48 p.m.
huddy. 2025-03-22 05:47 a.m.
Deleted User 2025-03-22 08:21 a.m.
It’s Saturday my boys
Deleted UserIt’s Saturday my boys
ryan 2025-03-22 12:45 p.m.
Generational run last night
ryan 2025-03-22 12:45 p.m.
Trust
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:46 p.m.
Generational????
ryan 2025-03-22 12:46 p.m.
Mhm
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:46 p.m.
Cute
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:46 p.m.
I went to a fire alarm that needed up not being an alarm
ryan 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
Oh 
ryan 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
It was a banquet type of night pancakes
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
I also had chicken minis for breakfast so it’s been a good start to the Saturday
ryanIt was a banquet type of night pancakes
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
Oh lord
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
Who’s the lucky guy
Deleted UserWho’s the lucky guy
ryan 2025-03-22 12:47 p.m.
No as in coors banquet
ryanNo as in coors banquet
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Ohhhh that kind
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Son you 100% are not old enough to drink
ryan 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Neither confirm nor deny
ryan 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Ruling today tho
ryanRuling today tho
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Soon!!!!!?????
ryan 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
Yes
ryan 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
It'll be soon
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
I got bosses with schedules
ryan 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
I've just woken up
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:48 p.m.
I’m getting whipped
ryanI've just woken up
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:49 p.m.
Do you at least know your decision
Deleted UserDo you at least know your decision
ryan 2025-03-22 12:49 p.m.
Mhm
Deleted User 2025-03-22 12:49 p.m.
Give a hintttttttt
ryan 2025-03-22 12:49 p.m.
No
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:55 p.m.
Hello
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:56 p.m.
I am LGBTQ friendly
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:56 p.m.
Just letting you know
Deleted User 2025-03-22 02:56 p.m.
That’s gotta be another night court submissions @ryan
Deleted UserWho’s the lucky guy
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:58 p.m.
I’m just trying to decide whether this implies that the honourable judge is a female or gay
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:58 p.m.
But either way I fully embrace it
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:59 p.m.
If people try to blacken my name and say otherwise, ignore them
huddy. 2025-03-22 02:59 p.m.
I am beating the allegations 
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
I love minorities too
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
don’t let the haters fool you
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
I’ve been at one with the minorities since day 1
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
Just letting you know sir judge
ryan 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
Cluttering the record 
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:02 p.m.
Sorry sir
huddy. 2025-03-22 03:03 p.m.
Just had to ensure you were aware of my love for the minorities
Deleted User 2025-03-22 05:15 p.m.@ryan uhhh sir
ryan 2025-03-22 05:23 p.m.
Guess what day it is still in gentlemen
huddy. 2025-03-22 05:27 p.m.
There is no ‘gentlemen’
huddy. 2025-03-22 05:27 p.m.
There is one singular gentleman rushing you
Deleted User 2025-03-22 08:43 p.m.
Mmmmm
Deleted User 2025-03-23 08:47 a.m.@ryan you lied
ryan 2025-03-23 12:34 p.m.
I did
huddy. 2025-03-23 02:26 p.m.
Free bro
ryanI did
Deleted User 2025-03-23 02:58 p.m.
sir this is not skibidi
ryan 2025-03-24 03:08 a.m.
In fairness to both of you
ryan 2025-03-24 03:08 a.m.@Deleted User @huddy.
ryan 2025-03-24 03:08 a.m.
I will have a paper ruling sometime this week. But I have two tests, two papers, and a quiz
ryan 2025-03-24 03:09 a.m.
This, gentlemen, is hell
ryan 2025-03-24 03:09 a.m.
Regardless
ryan 2025-03-24 03:21 a.m.Minute Order
The Court construed the motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 13(b)(6). In doing so, the Court considered whether the immunity doctrine espoused inHarlow , but codified in 5 M.S.C. 1 § 3212.2(a-c) means that, the facts being taken as true, the Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action upon which this Court can grant relief. This Court, however, is not convinced that the Defendant is entitled to immunity solely based on the facts within the civil complaint . Specifically, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's right to be secure in their person and the Plaintiff's right to fly in public air space to have been violated (count 1/2, respectively). For the former, the Court weighed the expected right of the Plaintiff versus the Government's need to maintain security and safety of their military institutions. The Court finds that because the Defendant was in public airspace, their right to remain secure outweighs any potential security risks. This decision was not made solely on the scope of the law, but it was a factor, given that our statutes can influence the scope of the Plaintiff's right to be secure. The latter right is implicit in the ability of every aviator to travel freely in public airspace. Because the Defendant, based on the complaint, abridged the Plaintiff's ability to move without legal authority or justification to do so. Given the training given to members of the military, it can be presumed that a reasonable person would have either not exercised the Defendant's level of force or would have known such force to be unlawful.
Thus, based on the complaint, the Defendant is NOT entitled to immunity. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), filed on the 18th of March, 2025, isdenied .
So ordered this 24th of March, 2025,
H. R. Ryan
District Judge
The Court construed the motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 13(b)(6). In doing so, the Court considered whether the immunity doctrine espoused in
Thus, based on the complaint, the Defendant is NOT entitled to immunity. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), filed on the 18th of March, 2025, is
So ordered this 24th of March, 2025,
H. R. Ryan
District Judge
ryan 2025-03-24 03:21 a.m.@Deleted User @huddy.
ryanryan 2025-03-24 03:22 a.m.
Because the Defendant, based on the complaint, abridged the Plaintiff's ability to move without legal authority or justification to do so...the Court finds a reasonable basis for the suit and a violation of a right*
huddy. 2025-03-24 04:11 a.m.
Thank you Your Honor.
ryanDeleted User 2025-03-24 01:10 p.m.
Could the court expound on the reasoning/methodology which was used to determine that the plaintiff was, in fact, in public air space?
ryan 2025-03-24 01:10 p.m.
Plaintiff factually alleged he was in a public airspace
ryan 2025-03-24 01:10 p.m.
I am bound to that on dismissal
ryan 2025-03-24 01:11 p.m.
I think you'd rather this be a discussion on summary judgment, because my ruling is limited to the factual assertions of the complaint being taken as true
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:11 p.m.
Did the court consider the conflicting suppositions made in the complaint?
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:11 p.m.
Which we pointed to in our arguments
ryan 2025-03-24 01:12 p.m.
Yes and it reconciled that doubt in favor of the Plaintiff, given qualified immunity is rarely granted at dismissal due to the complex nature of the factual inquiry associated with each case.
ryanYes and it reconciled that doubt in favor of the Plaintiff, given qualified immunity is rarely granted at dismissal due to the complex nature of the factual inquiry associated with...
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:13 p.m.
Fair enough, just wanted to get those observations on the record.
ryan 2025-03-24 01:13 p.m.
I understand completely
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:13 p.m.
Given your responses, I presume the court is inclined to consider summary judgement
ryan 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
That would depend on your responsive pleading
ryan 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
But I think qualified immunity is more meritorious at that stage
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
We also would tend to agree.
ryan 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
It is nigh impossible to resolve this airspace dispute taking facts as true
ryanThat would depend on your responsive pleading
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
The court indicated that our motion to dismiss would be construed as the defense’s responsive pleading, is this still the case?
ryan 2025-03-24 01:14 p.m.
Not unless you'd like to submit another one
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:15 p.m.
We’d like it to be taken as our responsive pleading
ryanIt is nigh impossible to resolve this airspace dispute taking facts as true
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:15 p.m.
I concur. The defense doesn’t doubt that the plaintiff believed they were in public air space
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:15 p.m.
We just suppose that their assertion is factually wrong
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:15 p.m.
Last question
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:16 p.m.
Would the court be open to a hearing in lieu of slapping documents back and forth?
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:16 p.m.
With the consent of defense counsel*
ryan 2025-03-24 01:25 p.m.
Hm
Deleted UserWith the consent of defense counsel*
ryan 2025-03-24 01:26 p.m.
What would be the nature of the hearing
ryanWhat would be the nature of the hearing
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:26 p.m.
I think it would be more productive to litigate our summary judgement arguments in a hearing setting, instead of trading documents back and forth
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:27 p.m.
so long as everything is kept concise, I think it will streamline everything and make it more understandable
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:27 p.m.
It would make it easier to show video-graphic evidence and to litigate finer details
ryan 2025-03-24 01:35 p.m.
Sure
ryanSure
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:35 p.m.
Bet, I’ll wait for counsel
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:35 p.m.
I can do either in game or over discord
Deleted User 2025-03-24 01:36 p.m.
Or even VC
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:42 p.m.
No
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:42 p.m.@ryan The whether or not he was in public airspace thing should either be done now or in trial
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:42 p.m.
It's so clear that he was
Deleted User 2025-03-24 03:42 p.m.
That’s not how legal proceedings work
ryan 2025-03-24 03:43 p.m.
Please halt
ryan 2025-03-24 03:43 p.m.
We are working out whether I can yield the judicial power of the State
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:44 p.m.
It's so simple
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:44 p.m.
It requires the extensive use of your eye power
ryan 2025-03-24 03:44 p.m.
I am a recess appointment
Deleted User 2025-03-24 03:44 p.m.
Que the jeopardy music
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:45 p.m.
So what are the next steps?
ryan 2025-03-24 03:45 p.m.
You wait here patiently
ryan 2025-03-24 03:45 p.m.
Like a good boy
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:46 p.m.
Excuse me
huddy. 2025-03-24 03:46 p.m.
I identify as a bangladeshi table cloth
Deleted User 2025-03-25 10:59 a.m.@ryan Has this been sorted?
Deleted User 2025-03-25 11:00 a.m.
I saw you were re-recess appointed
Deleted User 2025-03-28 04:36 p.m.@ryan
ryan 2025-03-29 01:41 p.m.
okay
ryan 2025-03-29 01:42 p.m.@huddy. are you content with a summary judgment hearing
ryan 2025-03-29 01:42 p.m.@Deleted User
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:42 p.m.
I think it’s much more practical than trading motions
UserMessage could not be loaded.
ryan 2025-03-29 01:43 p.m.
ryanhuddy. 2025-03-29 01:51 p.m.
Why is there a summary judgement motion
ryan 2025-03-29 01:51 p.m.
no a hearing to determine
ryan 2025-03-29 01:51 p.m.
pancakes want the mtd construed as a responsive pleading
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:51 p.m.
Correct
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:52 p.m.
I figured it would be easier for everyone if we did a hearing instead of back and forth motions
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:52 p.m.
Get it all hammered out at one time
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:52 p.m.
a hearing to determine what
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:52 p.m.
I’m slow
ryan 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
if summary judgment is warranted it
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
why would summary judgement be warranted
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
doenst this need to be presented in a motion
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
I moved for summary judgement
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
Oh right
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:53 p.m.
Im trying to save you time along with myself, by arguing our positions
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:54 p.m.
In a hearing and not a motion
Deleted UserI moved for summary judgement
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:54 p.m.
On what grounds
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:54 p.m.
Can you send me this
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:54 p.m.
I must bave missed jt
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:54 p.m.
That is the purpose of the hearing
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.@huddy. @ryan
What times/days work for summary judgement
What times/days work for summary judgement
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
Tomorrow is pretty busy for me, I'm free this afternoon
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
and I'm also free monday afternoon
ryan 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
i concur with all of this
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
Why cant this be done in a motion
ryan 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
Well it could
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
I’m confused ahh
ryan 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
James
ryan 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
it could
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
At least present your facts first
ryan 2025-03-29 01:57 p.m.
but it would be quicker to do a hearing
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
I’m not home tho
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
thats why
huddy.At least present your facts first
ryan 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
Why would he? He didn't contest any facts
huddy. 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
so it would be hard for me to respond
ryan 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
THen say that !
ryan 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
And we can find a tim
ryan 2025-03-29 01:58 p.m.
time
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:59 p.m.@huddy. Will you be free later today?
Deleted User 2025-03-29 01:59 p.m.
If not, what times Monday work for you
Deleted Userhuddy. 2025-03-29 02:00 p.m.
maybe
Deleted User 2025-03-29 02:01 p.m.
Okay, well if we do this over discord, we can set a general time you'll be free, as the time in which we start
Deleted User 2025-03-29 02:01 p.m.
and as you're available you can present your arguments
Deleted UserOkay, well if we do this over discord, we can set a general time you'll be free, as the time in which we start
huddy. 2025-03-29 02:43 p.m.
Sure I can rn actually
huddy. 2025-03-29 02:43 p.m.
good wifi signal
ryan 2025-03-29 02:44 p.m.
Okay
ryan 2025-03-29 02:44 p.m.@huddy. @Deleted User are we here
Deleted User 2025-03-29 02:44 p.m.
I can do it in an hour
huddy. 2025-03-29 02:44 p.m.
oh ma
Deleted User 2025-03-29 02:44 p.m.
I’m writing a report
Deleted User 2025-03-29 04:03 p.m.@ryan @huddy.
Deleted User 2025-03-29 04:03 p.m.
45 minutes?
ryan 2025-03-29 04:03 p.m.
sure
Deleted Userhuddy. 2025-03-29 04:17 p.m.
Now
huddy. 2025-03-29 04:17 p.m.
You said in 1 hour
huddy.Now
Deleted User 2025-03-29 04:18 p.m.
I can do it shortly
huddy. 2025-03-29 04:18 p.m.
ok
huddy. 2025-03-29 04:18 p.m.
it can be extended anyway
Deleted User 2025-03-29 04:18 p.m.
I’ll tag when I’m ready
ryan 2025-03-29 05:02 p.m.
Guys
ryan 2025-03-29 05:02 p.m.@Deleted User ur breaking my heart
ryan 2025-03-29 05:02 p.m.
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
Getting a shower and then we can start
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
bro is showering
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
then writing a report
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
then doing james' mom
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
Stuff keeps coming up
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
where does it end
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
30 minutes
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
u fine pookie
ryan 2025-03-29 05:03 p.m.
take ur time
huddy. 2025-03-29 05:10 p.m.
lock in bro
huddy. 2025-03-29 05:10 p.m.
i aint gonna be on in 30
huddy. 2025-03-29 05:10 p.m.
cuz u said u would be on 2 hrs ago
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:28 p.m.
OKAY LADIES
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:28 p.m.@huddy.
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:28 p.m.@ryan
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:29 p.m.
Let’s do this
ryan 2025-03-29 05:29 p.m.
You caught me mid - nvm
ryanYou caught me mid - nvm
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:31 p.m.
If you want I can present arguments and then james can respond
ryan 2025-03-29 05:31 p.m.
No
ryan 2025-03-29 05:31 p.m.
We need james
ryan 2025-03-29 05:31 p.m.@huddy.
Deleted User 2025-03-29 05:38 p.m.@huddy. wakey wakey
huddy. 2025-03-30 01:40 p.m.@Deleted User
Deleted User 2025-03-30 01:41 p.m.
I'm going to be away all day, lets schedule a time tomorrow
huddy. 2025-03-30 01:44 p.m.
Can we just do this over motions
huddy. 2025-03-30 01:44 p.m.
we are NOT finding a time
Deleted User 2025-03-30 01:44 p.m.
Motions will take triple the time if we just figure out a time
Deleted User 2025-03-30 01:44 p.m.
it doesn't have to be continuous
huddy. 2025-03-30 01:45 p.m.
I'm not on during the early week
huddy. 2025-03-30 01:45 p.m.
they really do not
huddy. 2025-03-31 03:24 a.m.@Deleted User Are you even allowed to practice law now that you're a convicted felon
huddy. 2025-03-31 03:25 a.m.
did the state bar let you keep your license after terminating you
Deleted User 2025-03-31 08:31 a.m.
Yeah I’m good my homie
ryan 2025-03-31 02:08 p.m.
OKay
Deleted User 2025-03-31 02:08 p.m.
What time
Deleted User 2025-03-31 02:08 p.m.
Are we free today
huddy. 2025-03-31 04:27 p.m.
tmrw
UserMessage could not be loaded.
ryan 2025-04-03 05:22 p.m.
ryan 2025-04-03 05:22 p.m.@huddy. if ur down we could get a vc hearing
Deleted User 2025-04-03 08:21 p.m.
Just for record purposes, my license has been unconstitutionally suspended by the State Bar.
The Department of Justice is working to order the State Bar to correct their violation of my rights. We expect this issue to be resolved within a day or two. Until then, I ask for a temporary pause, as I anticipate this issue to be quickly rectified.
The Department of Justice is working to order the State Bar to correct their violation of my rights. We expect this issue to be resolved within a day or two. Until then, I ask for a temporary pause, as I anticipate this issue to be quickly rectified.
Deleted UserJust for record purposes, my license has been unconstitutionally suspended by the State Bar. The Department of Justice is working to order the State Bar to correct their violatio...
ryan 2025-04-03 08:22 p.m.
You'll need to switch counsel
ryan 2025-04-03 08:22 p.m.
I will not delay
ryan 2025-04-03 08:23 p.m.
You have perfectly good JAGs to switch in, I presume?
ryanYou'll need to switch counsel
Deleted User 2025-04-03 08:24 p.m.
Your honor the department of justice is actively in the process of ordering the rectification of this matter. I foresee only a day or two inconvenience. I would believe that change of counsel would actually cause a bigger delay because I’m the only one handling this case.
If the court will give me 48 hours to see if this is corrected, I believe that could be the most effective solution
If the court will give me 48 hours to see if this is corrected, I believe that could be the most effective solution
Deleted UserYour honor the department of justice is actively in the process of ordering the rectification of this matter. I foresee only a day or two inconvenience. I would believe that change...
ryan 2025-04-03 08:38 p.m.
If, within 24 hours, I do not have proof of it being reinstated or an injunction ordering reinstatement, you will be booted from this case.
ryanIf, within 24 hours, I do not have proof of it being reinstated or an injunction ordering reinstatement, you will be booted from this case.
Deleted User 2025-04-03 08:43 p.m.
Roger, will have it
ryan 2025-04-04 09:25 p.m.@Deleted User where are se
ryan 2025-04-04 09:25 p.m.
We
ryanDeleted User 2025-04-04 09:26 p.m.
SCOM is actively reviewing. The DOJ wishes to issue an injunction against the State Bar, but are awaiting clarity from the Supreme Court.
Deleted User 2025-04-04 09:26 p.m.
I can begin looking to assign another JAGC attorney
Deleted User 2025-04-04 09:26 p.m.
It will take a little bit of time
ryan 2025-04-04 09:27 p.m.
That is fine
ryan 2025-04-04 09:27 p.m.
I want a contingency plan
ryanI want a contingency plan
Deleted User 2025-04-04 09:27 p.m.
Of course, we’re stretched a bit thin right now, but I’ll keep you posted
huddy. 2025-04-05 06:24 a.m.
I must press that this is slowing down the case immensely and is completely unfair
Deleted User 2025-04-05 09:05 a.m.
This is a civil case, there is no right to a speedy trial
huddy. 2025-04-05 01:05 p.m.
You're absolutely right!
huddy. 2025-04-05 01:05 p.m.
Take a 4 month LOA
huddy.Take a 4 month LOA
Deleted User 2025-04-05 01:05 p.m.@ryan your honor he said it, not me
Deleted User 2025-04-05 01:05 p.m.
See you back in August
huddy. 2025-04-05 01:05 p.m.
Buy me a rope whilst you're at it please
ryan 2025-04-07 12:55 a.m.
SO
ryan 2025-04-07 12:55 a.m.@Deleted User status on replacement counsel
ryan 2025-04-07 12:55 a.m.
And @Deleted User @huddy. THis has gone on too long, if you wish to submit SJ, we will anticipate a written motion, we've tried to schedule, it hasn't worked
ryan 2025-04-07 12:56 a.m.
You are to find replacement counsel within 24 hours, you have different JAGs, please be hasty
ryanYou are to find replacement counsel within 24 hours, you have different JAGs, please be hasty
Deleted User 2025-04-07 06:06 a.m.
One of my JAs is going out on an extended LOA
Deleted User 2025-04-07 06:06 a.m.
Another JA has an active case
Deleted User 2025-04-07 06:06 a.m.
My other two JAs are junior attorneys who must supervised be a senior JA.
Deleted User 2025-04-07 06:06 a.m.
I’m trying to work something out
Deleted UserMy other two JAs are junior attorneys who must supervised be a senior JA.
ryan 2025-04-07 01:04 p.m.
Assign one or your junior JAs to this and I will allow you to supervise nominally. You are not to act as an attorney in this case, you will simply be ensuring your junior JA does not erroneously mess up. You may offer no official legal advice during that time
ryan 2025-04-07 01:04 p.m.
* for this case
ryan 2025-04-07 01:04 p.m.
Is that amenable?
ryanAssign one or your junior JAs to this and I will allow you to supervise nominally. You are not to act as an attorney in this case, you will simply be ensuring your junior JA does n...
Deleted User 2025-04-07 01:05 p.m.
Yes but I still need a day or two, I’m currently on my first 24 of a 48 hour shift
Deleted User 2025-04-07 01:05 p.m.
Given this is a civil case, there is no expectation of expeditiousness
Deleted UserYes but I still need a day or two, I’m currently on my first 24 of a 48 hour shift
ryan 2025-04-07 01:25 p.m.
That is fine
Deleted UserGiven this is a civil case, there is no expectation of expeditiousness
ryan 2025-04-07 01:26 p.m.
But I will not have this sit here for weeks, you must understand
Deleted User 2025-04-07 01:26 p.m.
I agree, I should have a solution in the coming days
ryan 2025-04-09 01:13 a.m.@Deleted User I am getting impatient
ryanDeleted User 2025-04-09 09:11 a.m.
Bar says they’ll have a final word before the 10th, which is tomorrow
Deleted User 2025-04-09 09:12 a.m.
I just had another attorney say they’re going to have reduced activity due to school
Deleted User 2025-04-09 09:12 a.m.
Trying
huddy. 2025-04-11 03:24 p.m.@ryan Plaintiff moves the court to do something (we have absolutely no suggestions as to what we want the court to do)
ryan 2025-04-12 02:29 p.m.@Deleted User
ryan 2025-04-12 02:30 p.m.
It's the 12th counselor
huddy. 2025-04-15 03:43 p.m.@ryan Your Honor, Plaintiff wishes to whine to the Honourable Judge that over a week has passed with no solution
huddy. 2025-04-18 10:23 a.m.@ryan Your Honor please may you follow up on this?
huddy. 2025-04-18 12:25 p.m.@ryan https://discord.com/channels/1221167852816564264/1221167853517013227/1362432504996565322 Just letting you know
huddy. 2025-04-18 12:26 p.m. 
ryan 2025-04-19 08:45 a.m.
LOL !
ryan 2025-04-19 08:45 a.m.@Snake you need a new lawyer king
ryan 2025-04-19 08:45 a.m.
huddy. 2025-04-22 11:23 a.m.@ryan Would we be able to get a timeframe on this?
ryan 2025-04-23 02:08 p.m.
No
ryan 2025-04-23 02:09 p.m.@Snake You WILL need new counsel
ryan 2025-04-23 02:09 p.m.
If you fail to reply to this message with new counsel OR going pro se within 24 hours, you'll be held in contempt
ryan used /add
clerkFlow Bot2025-04-23 11:29 p.m. @ryan has added @Snake to the case channel.
Case Modified
Snake 2025-04-24 05:37 p.m.
hi
Snakehi
ryan 2025-04-24 08:21 p.m.
You need new counsel
ryan 2025-04-25 12:56 a.m.
How do you want to go about that
ryan 2025-04-27 05:28 p.m.@Snake new counsel
ryan 2025-04-27 05:28 p.m.
how do u want to go about that
ryan 2025-04-27 05:29 p.m.
next time i ask it'll accompany a hefty fine
Snake 2025-04-28 11:38 p.m.@ryan JAGC tells me that a lawyer is assigned to my case and is trying to represent me
Snake 2025-04-28 11:39 p.m.
their name is @bob78711new (edited)
bob78711new 2025-04-29 12:29 a.m.
Will file a NOA sometime soon
bob78711new 2025-04-29 12:30 a.m.
I am feeling a bit under the weather
ryan 2025-05-01 09:18 p.m.@bob78711new Hi are you feeling better
ryan 2025-05-01 09:18 p.m.
if not drink some tea
ryan 2025-05-01 09:19 p.m.
It's time to continue
ryanbob78711new 2025-05-01 09:28 p.m.
yeah I planned on filing it tonight or tomorrow
ryanIt's time to continue
bob78711new 2025-05-01 09:29 p.m.
do you mind if I do a paperless NOA
ryan 2025-05-01 09:29 p.m.
go for it
bob78711new 2025-05-01 11:11 p.m.
I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for @Snake
/s/ bob78711new
1st Lt bob78711new
Judge Advocate Generals Corps
Judge Advocate
Mayflower National Guard
/s/ bob78711new
1st Lt bob78711new
Judge Advocate Generals Corps
Judge Advocate
Mayflower National Guard
ryan 2025-05-01 11:27 p.m.
Okay
ryan 2025-05-06 03:06 p.m.@bob78711new
ryan 2025-05-06 03:06 p.m.
Hi
ryan 2025-05-06 03:06 p.m.
How are you
ryan 2025-05-06 03:06 p.m.
ryanbob78711new 2025-05-06 03:22 p.m.
under the water
ryan 2025-05-06 03:23 p.m.
Me too bro
ryan 2025-05-06 03:24 p.m.
How do u wanna handle this
bob78711new 2025-05-08 04:58 p.m.@ryan is this case on the website?
ryan 2025-05-08 05:57 p.m.
No it happened before
ryan 2025-05-08 05:57 p.m.
Be a dear and use trello
ryan 2025-05-08 05:57 p.m.
I am growing impatient
ryan 2025-05-08 05:57 p.m.
You have 12 hours to figure out how you want to play this
ryanBe a dear and use trello
bob78711new 2025-05-08 06:08 p.m.
Alr
ryanYou have 12 hours to figure out how you want to play this
bob78711new 2025-05-08 06:09 p.m.
Settlement has been written
bob78711new 2025-05-08 06:09 p.m.
Waiting for my client to wake up and read it so it can be sent
ryan 2025-05-08 06:10 p.m.
Okay
bob78711new 2025-05-11 10:52 a.m.
Your Honor, the defendant and plaintiff have entered into a Settlement Agreement
bob78711new 2025-05-11 10:52 a.m.@ryan
bob78711new 2025-05-30 03:31 p.m.@ryan I believe that the settlement has been payed and is in full effect, if @huddy. can confirm can we archive this?
huddy. 2025-05-30 04:36 p.m.@ryan Can confirm
bob78711newhuddy. 2025-05-30 04:36 p.m.
i believe he has trouble logging into his account
huddy. 2025-05-30 04:36 p.m.
so cant talk
huddy. 2025-05-30 04:36 p.m.
thats what someone says
huddy. 2025-05-30 04:36 p.m.
maybe we ping @Brenda Cornwallis
huddy.maybe we ping @Brenda Cornwallis
bob78711new 2025-05-30 04:49 p.m.
yeah
Perch Perkins 2025-05-31 12:19 p.m.
new username
Perch Perkinsnew username
huddy. 2025-05-31 01:25 p.m.
ew
ryan 2025-06-04 01:07 a.m.
Okay
ryan 2025-06-04 01:08 a.m.
Yes this will be archived
ryan 2025-06-30 12:42 a.m.@Nicklaus archive
Xerxy used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 01:00 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-30 01:00 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1389108296539181090 Successfully created transcript.
Exported 853 messages